The Supreme Court has ruled that the most violent video games cannot be restricted by the state of California. They are protected by the First Amendment.
As I say in my column tomorrow, I understand the ruling from an intellectual standpoint. But experience tells me something different.
The court says it’s up to parents to regulate a child’s consumption of violent videos. How many judges think this is possible in our Internet age so full of rebellion?
Urban streets are crawling with gang members and other thugs who consume this garbage and already believe life is cheap. Why shouldn’t they, with the way we treat the unborn?
Laws restrict access to alcohol and cigarettes because the state rightly believes these substances are harmful to children. So, what kids pour into their stomachs and suck into their lungs is in the interest of government, but what they take into their minds through their eyes and ears is not? What’s the difference?
This article published on June 29, 2011.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C.